Preventive medicine · 2016
Taxonomy for colorectal cancer screening promotion: Lessons from recent randomized controlled trials.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ritvo Paul, Myers Ronald E, Serenity Mardie, Gupta Samir, Inadomi John M, Green Beverly B, Jerant Anthony, Tinmouth Jill, Paszat Lawrence, Pirbaglou Meysam, Rabeneck Linda
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To derive a taxonomy for colorectal cancer screening that advances Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) and screening uptake.
DESIGN: Detailed publication review, multiple interviews with principal investigators (PIs) and collaboration with PIs as co-authors produced a CRCS intervention taxonomy. Semi-structured interview questions with PIs (Drs. Inadomi, Myers, Green, Gupta, Jerant and Ritvo) yielded details about trial conduct. Interview comparisons led to an iterative process informing serial interviews until a consensus was obtained on final taxonomy structure.
RESULTS: These taxonomy headings (Engagement Sponsor, Population Targeted, Alternative Screening Tests, Delivery Methods, and Support for Test Performance (EPADS)) were used to compare studies. Exemplary insights emphasized: 1) direct test delivery to patients; 2) linguistic-ethnic matching of staff to minority subjects; and 3) authorization of navigators to schedule or refer for colonoscopies and/or distribute stool blood tests during screening promotion.
CONCLUSION: PIs of key RCTs (2012-2015) derived a CRCS taxonomy useful in detailed examination of CRCS promotion and design of future RCTs.
DESIGN: Detailed publication review, multiple interviews with principal investigators (PIs) and collaboration with PIs as co-authors produced a CRCS intervention taxonomy. Semi-structured interview questions with PIs (Drs. Inadomi, Myers, Green, Gupta, Jerant and Ritvo) yielded details about trial conduct. Interview comparisons led to an iterative process informing serial interviews until a consensus was obtained on final taxonomy structure.
RESULTS: These taxonomy headings (Engagement Sponsor, Population Targeted, Alternative Screening Tests, Delivery Methods, and Support for Test Performance (EPADS)) were used to compare studies. Exemplary insights emphasized: 1) direct test delivery to patients; 2) linguistic-ethnic matching of staff to minority subjects; and 3) authorization of navigators to schedule or refer for colonoscopies and/or distribute stool blood tests during screening promotion.
CONCLUSION: PIs of key RCTs (2012-2015) derived a CRCS taxonomy useful in detailed examination of CRCS promotion and design of future RCTs.